DPP v Farquharson (Ruling no 12) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1419 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ROBERT DONALD WILLIAM FARQUHARSON

Ruling No 12

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	24 September 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Farquharson (Ruling No 12)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 466

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr J Rapke QC Ms A Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey Mr C Mylonas	Victoria Legal Aid

---

HIS HONOUR:

In other circumstances the evidence sought to be led by Mr Morrissey could be said to be admissible. It could be said to be admissible because although the relevant data is the next day it is, nonetheless, in the same physical locale, that is to say in hospital, not outside, and that is a continuum which Mr Morrissey is entitled to rely upon.

However, in the present state of the material I rule it is inadmissible for two reasons. One is the whole trial has been conducted on the basis that this type of statement and observation of a lay sort is excluded. It was excluded throughout the Crown case and would now be inappropriate to open it up in the defence case, unless we are going to re-run the whole Crown case again on this issue, which is quite inappropriate.

Second, even at this stage, when final addresses are about to start, no statement has been provided to the prosecution, or to me, to consider the material. Given the way the trial has proceeded I think it would be quite inappropriate now to re-call the various witnesses whose evidence has been excluded on this point. This witness is not an expert, this witness is simply being called as to lay observations and in my view therefore falls on the other side of the line to the evidence to be called from Mr Roberts.

If the trial had been conducted differently from the start a different conclusion might, or might not, have arisen.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Farquharson, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought a ruling on a point of law concerning the sufficiency of evidence. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case of murder against the appellant, given the nature and circumstances of the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for murder, considering the circumstances of the death and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the act of killing.

The court examined the evidence meticulously, focusing on the circumstances surrounding the death, the statements of witnesses, and the appellant's own statements. It was noted that the prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's presence at the scene and the timing of events. The court found that while there was evidence of the appellant's presence and potential involvement, it was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the act of murder. The court emphasised the need for a clear and compelling connection between the appellant and the act of killing, which was not satisfactorily established in this case.

Consequently, the court held that the prosecution had not proven a prima facie case of murder against the appellant. The conviction was quashed, and the court ordered a retrial, considering the weight and nature of the evidence. The court's decision underscored the importance of direct evidence and the stringent requirements for proving a murder charge in criminal proceedings.

DPP v Farquharson (Ruling no 12)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established